The original deadline for filing their Sup Ct. cert petition was 8/6/07. In a most extraordinary move, DC asked for 30 extra days from the Chief Justice and was granted it, thus making the deadline 9/6/07. Now technically, if the respondent takes all their allotted time, the petition will not be ready for review by the 'long conference' on 9/28 before the new term begins on the first Monday in October. They may well file quickly and get it in for that conference. Either way, the petition will be considered early in the term, probably scheduled for argument in December or January, with a decision by June of 2008.

Delay may very well be the desire of D.C., but once their cert petition is granted, they basically have no control of the timing. There are strict rules about when the briefs are due, the court simply fills its argument calendar, and the justices release decisions when they damn well please, getting them all out before the close of the term in June. In general, the Sup Ct are hard nuts and have very strict timelines for everyone but themselves.

Also, you may begin to see this case referred to as 'Heller' instead of 'Parker', as Heller is the surviving plaintiff who had applied for a license in DC and been refused.

Click to expand...

Huh? Did Fenty have Parker removed with extreme prejudice? I hadn't heard.

NEVER MIND. I found this on SCOTUSblog, which answers my question (and raises more).

The three judges on the Circuit panel agreed that one of the six Washington residents who filed the challenge did have a right to go to court to make the challenge. That individual was Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. special police officeer who is allowed to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center, but wishes to have one at his home; he said he lives in a high-crime neighborhood in Washington. He applied for and was denied registration to own a handgun for personal use.

The majority opinion appears to strike down the D.C. law's flat ban on registering handguns, so far as it applies to having a gun "within the home or on possessed land," and its requirement of a license for a gun within the home or on "possessed land." That is what the six challengers sought in their lawsuit, and what the Circuit Court panel said it was ordering.

Judge Henderson, in dissent, argued that Heller only had a right to challenge the denial of a permit for his pistol under a specific section of the local law, and disputed the majority view that Heller had successfully challenged not only the provision that led to the denial of a permit for possession, but also provisions requiring guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or barring the carrying of any pistol not registered. The majority found those clauses, too, to be unconstitutional, as restricting Heller's right under the Second Amendment to have a gun available for personal protection in his home.

Also, you may begin to see this case referred to as 'Heller' instead of 'Parker', as Heller is the surviving plaintiff who had applied for a license in DC and been refused.

Click to expand...

Huh? Did Fenty have Parker removed with extreme prejudice? I hadn't heard.

NEVER MIND. I found this on SCOTUSblog, which answers my question (and raises more).

The three judges on the Circuit panel agreed that one of the six Washington residents who filed the challenge did have a right to go to court to make the challenge. That individual was Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. special police officeer who is allowed to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center, but wishes to have one at his home; he said he lives in a high-crime neighborhood in Washington. He applied for and was denied registration to own a handgun for personal use.

The majority opinion appears to strike down the D.C. law's flat ban on registering handguns, so far as it applies to having a gun "within the home or on possessed land," and its requirement of a license for a gun within the home or on "possessed land." That is what the six challengers sought in their lawsuit, and what the Circuit Court panel said it was ordering.

Judge Henderson, in dissent, argued that Heller only had a right to challenge the denial of a permit for his pistol under a specific section of the local law, and disputed the majority view that Heller had successfully challenged not only the provision that led to the denial of a permit for possession, but also provisions requiring guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or barring the carrying of any pistol not registered. The majority found those clauses, too, to be unconstitutional, as restricting Heller's right under the Second Amendment to have a gun available for personal protection in his home.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

What questions did that raise for you? If it is regarding what was said in the dessent, that was just a bunch of anti-gun regurgitated crap (DC is not a state so it doesn't count).

The three judges on the Circuit panel agreed that one of the six Washington residents who filed the challenge did have a right to go to court to make the challenge. That individual was Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. special police officeer who is allowed to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center, but wishes to have one at his home; he said he lives in a high-crime neighborhood in Washington. He applied for and was denied registration to own a handgun for personal use.

Click to expand...

If a US Citizen can be denied standing in a federal court in a federal district but a mere police officer in the federal district is granted standing, I have to react by going "Hmmmm".

Do government employees have a higher standing under the law than the common citizen?

The three judges on the Circuit panel agreed that one of the six Washington residents who filed the challenge did have a right to go to court to make the challenge. That individual was Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. special police officeer who is allowed to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center, but wishes to have one at his home; he said he lives in a high-crime neighborhood in Washington. He applied for and was denied registration to own a handgun for personal use.

Click to expand...

If a US Citizen can be denied standing in a federal court in a federal district but a mere police officer in the federal district is granted standing, I have to react by going "Hmmmm".

Do government employees have a higher standing under the law than the common citizen?

Click to expand...

No, I underlined why he was deemed to have standing and the others were not... because they had not applied, he did.

The three judges on the Circuit panel agreed that one of the six Washington residents who filed the challenge did have a right to go to court to make the challenge. That individual was Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. special police officeer who is allowed to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center, but wishes to have one at his home; he said he lives in a high-crime neighborhood in Washington. He applied for and was denied registration to own a handgun for personal use.

Click to expand...

If a US Citizen can be denied standing in a federal court in a federal district but a mere police officer in the federal district is granted standing, I have to react by going "Hmmmm".

Do government employees have a higher standing under the law than the common citizen?

Click to expand...

No, I underlined why he was deemed to have standing and the others were not... because they had not applied, he did.

Click to expand...

Right. It is an issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. This standing issue is what the NRA screwed up in their Seegars case.

Activists should be aware of the fact that as the "Parker" case heads to appeal at the Supreme Court, it is no longer known as Parker v. DC.

The pleading for certiorari will be titled "District of Columbia v. Heller" since Heller was the only plaintiff in the original case who was actually found to have legal standing and the roles have switched for the appeal.

This change has made it difficult for many people trying to keep up with the case to locate information since they were searching for the wrong case title. The Supreme Court did grant the Districts request for more time to file their appeal and that time runs out on September 5.

One of the primary reasons for the requested delay -- and probably for the decision to appeal itself -- is the fact that DC has managed to hire a prominent anti-gun law professor to head up their case. The
Professor only became available in the past month or so and they wanted him to be able to supervise the whole shebang. (Or at least that's what I think.)

I am currently writing a short piece on this subject for inclusion in the upcoming edition of the Hard Corps Report which we hope to have in the mail next week. If you do not currently receive the HCR, all it takes is a donation (or really just a request, but we much prefer requests that are accompanied by a donation to help defray our costs.)

Remember that your CongressCritters are home this month; make sure they get voting advice from you while they're in town.

The pleading for certiorari will be titled "District of Columbia v. Heller" since Heller was the only plaintiff in the original case who was actually found to have legal standing and the roles have switched for the appeal.

The pleading for certiorari will be titled "District of Columbia v. Heller" since Heller was the only plaintiff in the original case who was actually found to have legal standing and the roles have switched for the appeal.

Click to expand...

Why is this? I haven't been following very closely.

Click to expand...

From the opinion:
The denial of the gun license is significant; it constitutes an injury independent of the Districtâ€™s prospective enforcement of its gun laws, and an injury to which the stringent requirements for pre-enforcement standing under Navegar and Seegars would not apply. Since D.C. Code Â§ 22-4504 (prohibition against carrying a pistol without a license) and D.C. Code Â§ 7-2507.02 (disassembly/trigger lock requirement) would amount to further conditions on the certificate Heller desires, Hellerâ€™s standing to pursue the license denial would subsume these other claims too.